La légitimité des systèmes politiques, l’espace public et les médias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les répercussions supposées de la mondialisation sur les démocraties occidentales ont renouvelé l’intérêt de la science politique pour le concept de légitimité. L’hypothèse d’une érosion ou d’une transformation de la légitimité est maintenant très répandue. Qu’en est-il, cependant, sur le plan empirique ? Le texte suggère d’abord que la littérature tend à négliger la dimension communicationnelle des processus de légitimation. Ensuite, il esquisse les contours d’un programme de recherche centré sur la (dé-)construction de la légitimité dans l’espace public et présente les résultats d’une étude comparée portant sur les discours de légitimation dans un échantillon de médias allemands, suisses, britanniques et américains. Il s’avère que l’hypothèse d’une crise de légitimité généralisée de l’État-nation démocratique n’est pas confirmée – le soutien discursif apporté aux institutions majeures des quatre pays examinés reste assez marqué et, dans une large mesure, fondé sur des critères démocratiques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".